On Sep 26, 2008, at 5:42 PM, Doug Farrell wrote: > I’m have the ‘type’ column in the press_routing_press linking table; > something like this: > > Sess.query(Press, > PressRoutingPress > .type).join(Press.routes).filter(PressRouting.code==’A’).all() > > I’ve tried some variations of this, but no luck. I’ve also tried > applying what the documentation says about using the Association > Object, but haven’t figured it out yet. I’ve gotten back lots of > data, just not the limited set I’m looking fore.
oh. This is a different situation. You have press_routing_press mapped to its own class, and it has columns that contain information distinct from the join between Press and PressRouting. You'd have to join that instead. If you have a relation on Press for it, its easy: query(Press, PressRoutingPress.type).join(Press.pressrouting, PressRoutingPress.route).filter(...)... you should also set "viewonly=True" on your Press.routes relation(), otherwise during flush you could have conflicting data placed in the press_routing_press table. The preferred pattern for an association table that has additonal columns in it is the "association object pattern", which can be used in conjunction with the "associationproxy" to simplify operations from Press->PressRouting. But in your case I'd just use straight association object for starters. This pattern is described in the mapping docs. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
